Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Marital Rape

The following was shared by Anonymous. Thanks, Anon!

http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/
showthread.php?t=25414&page=11

This appears to be a very clear and articulate discussion thread on the subject of "marital rape". I haven't had time to read it all, let alone digest it, but I thought I'd hand it along. You may find it worth your while.

A couple of quick thoughts here. The main problem with the issue of marital rape is no different than for rape in general. It concerns the question of evidence/corroboration/he said-she said, and all that sort of thing. It amuses me to watch people continually missing the mark in this connection, when they are conversing upon this subject. It seems to me that they are throwing their darts at the wrong dartboard!

Positive proof is hard enough to secure even in a standard rape case, but in the marital kind the difficulty is uniquely compounded. Here we have two people sharing their home and their lives on a permanent basis and, at least in theory, having sex regularly as part of the package. A single act of so-called rape becomes mighty difficult to distinguish against the background of normal spousal intercourse which is presumed to be occurring anyway. The parties are alone together in a bedroom late at night, and. . . a "rape" occurs. In a standard rape case, the context as I have described it would carry a very different evidentiary loading - likely to the benefit of the plaintiff. But in a marital rape case it oughtn't unduly impress any judge or jury in terms of securing a guilty verdict. After all, husbands and wives are expected to be alone together in bedrooms late at night - and often in a state of partial or total undress, so that it becomes more problematic for her to say "he ripped my clothes off!"

In sum, rape is hard to prove and "marital" rape is damnably harder!

Another point I would make regarding marital rape as a legal concept is, that it radically undermines the institution of marriage. Early feminist anti-rape activists effectively said "down with the idea of conjugal rights!" All right, fair enough. But if you enshrine that idea into law, then in theory you might as well throw marriage out the window. It becomes possible for spouse A to go on a permanent sex strike against spouse B. That leaves spouse B with three options: 1) Celibacy, 2) Extramarital satisfaction, or 3) Divorce. Nothing in the scenario I have painted bodes well for the future of marriage as an institution - at least in the form that we know it. I suppose that was part of somebody's agenda all along, but did they ask the rest of society if such a thing was wanted?

I will touch only briefly upon the possibility of false rape accusation within marriage. This, along with all the other possibilities for false accusation in marriage (which have come about with full feminist connivance if not active support), turns marriage into a poisonous trap that men would be wise to avoid.

25 Comments:

Blogger Uzem & Luzem said...

Marital rape is an oxymoron.

I just posted an article on my blog about false rape accusations. You'll probably recognize it because I originally submitted a version of it to your site under "Anonymous" in August.

http://uzemandluzem.blogspot.com/

10:19 AM  
Blogger Davout said...

I wonder if feminists will advocate that the witholding spouse MUST financially compensate the deprived spouse so that he/she can satisfy sexual needs elsewhere, since, as we all know, they're all about 'justice' an all.

Hehe.

12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact is that the Marital Rape canard played by the FemNags was intended to kill Marriage. Men now have zero reasons to Marry and assume the liabilities of Marriage and a Family. ZERO.

This was the intent all along. Fact is that one in five US Marriages is celibate. Sex once a year or less. That is not a Marriage,it is a living arrangement.

Women outside the US in non Feminized countries understand that providing Sexual satisfaction is a requirement of Marriage. Women who do not are engaged in marital fraud. Some states allow a Marriage to be dissolved if there is no sex for a year or longer.

Khankrumthebulgar

6:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup, if the main reason to get married no longer exits, then there's no reason for men to do it. However, women see marriage as a way to get a man's money while offering nothing in return. Then the state uses marriage as a weapon to oppress men. Men have no reason whatsoever to get married, but every reason to avoid women as the pit traps they really are. Men in ancient times understood this, hence stories like the one of Gilgamesh when the fickle and notoriously untrustworthy goddess Ishtar tries to seduce him and he told her to take a hike after he called her a pit trap for men. As for sexless marriages, especially among royalty, the husband had every right to find another wife who would bear children with him.

8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great article Fidel. You are right on the money. If I knew that my marriage would end with a false rape allegation during a divorce and I would go to jail,spend a year under house arrest while on bail only to have my wife refuse to testify weeks before the trial. I would never have gotten married or even dated. This tactic that is used daily by people like my wife and she got to walk away and my life was basically ended because of her and her cop friends.
I read these feminist chat rooms about the poor women, well what about poor fucking me. My lovely daughter and son I have not seen in five years will be raised to believe that the father that loves them is a rapist.
Again I don't want to sound selfish. But what about me and my poor kids, what about the pile of shit of a life that I have been forced to live. What about some justice for me and my kids.
No there is none , there is only one gross day after another, just waiting for that day that when I find no reason to even live.
Well I don't think that day is far off. I am not a rapist. My daughter and son's loving father is not a rapist.
I hope these pigs that call themselves humans relish in the fact that when I'm gone it will be their fault.
The saddest thing is my kids will most likely not even care, they would have been raised with lies and false stories about me. They will say, well he was a pig anyway.
He raped my Mom.
Regards
Peter Tarbat
tarspot@msn.com
PS I still can't believe she did this to me .

10:15 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

Early feminist anti-rape activists effectively said "down with the idea of conjugal rights!" All right, fair enough. But if you enshrine that idea into law, then in theory you might as well throw marriage out the window. It becomes possible for spouse A to go on a permanent sex strike against spouse B. That leaves spouse B with three options: 1) Celibacy, 2) Extramarital satisfaction, or 3) Divorce. Nothing in the scenario I have painted bodes well for the future of marriage as an institution...

Wait a second. What? Marriage is solely about securing a man's right to sex, to the point where he'll divorce his wife for lack of it even if there are kids involved? His sexual pleasure takes precedence over his kids? I'm sorry, fidelbogen, but that's insane.

The real point I want to address, though, is this: Are you saying that such a "permanent sex strike" should not be possible within the context of a marriage, and that marital rape is an acceptable (even desirable, since it "bodes well for the future of marriage as an institution") response to that scenario?

Because it seems a lot like that's what you're saying. And that's insane, as well.

7:56 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

If that "seems" a lot like what I am saying, then you would be well-advised to make a plausible case why it "seems" that way.

Go ahead, start talking. The microphone is on.

8:35 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

Now you're all gonna hate me.

Humans have sex drives. Lack of sex causes stress leading to irrational behavior, and even self-destructive risk-taking behavior, just like....withdrawal (the drug addiction kind). When a man stares at a woman's ass, his brain is thinking one thing and one thing only: I need drugs, and that's where I get them. Men and women are drug dispensers for each other.

Women, freed from the Puritanical sexual mores forced upon them by the "Patriarchy", pursue their lustful drug interests with the same abandon and fervor that was once reserved for men. Don't tell me it ain't so, because I know different. We all need our "fixes".

Or do we?

One you honestly become convinced that this is all about chemical lies, discussions about the importance of sex in marriage become meaningless. Fidel, as Literary Critic points out, women have a right to go on a "sex strike" in a marriage, and most do, beginning shortly after the ceremony. Ask any older man.

Women are a lot more cold blooded than men (yes, I am generalizing again, and correctly again). Marriage is the END of sex. Sex is merely a tool to be used to get what you want; women learn that soon enough, and most men never learn it. But men CAN learn it, and should. We are a lot better off once we do. Speaking from personal experience. Want some drugs? What's in it for me?

10:11 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@notnow:

"Now you're all gonna hate me."

Awwww....fiddlesticks!

But, ahem...yes. I know what you are saying, and I largely agree - although I'm sure I would quibble with some of the fine points.

11:06 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Davout:

"I wonder if feminists will advocate that the witholding spouse MUST financially compensate the deprived spouse so that he/she can satisfy sexual needs elsewhere, since, as we all know, they're all about 'justice' an all."

In an ironic twist, this just MIGHT happen if men should somehow learn to play the withholding game.

Because of course, the fems will do what they normally do: Blame it on men!

hehe! ;-)

11:33 PM  
Blogger Davout said...

@ FidelB

The problem is that if men do it, they will still lose cos if the woman divorces, she gets a big payout+the kids and the house.

The adequate retaliation is for men to outsource to foreign countries or to move there permanently and let Western women fend for themselves as they claim to be able to do, what with all the feminist Tang these women have drunk.

8:42 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

"Are you saying that such a 'permanent sex strike' should not be possible within the context of a marriage, and that marital rape is an acceptable (even desirable, since it 'bodes well for the future of marriage as an institution') response to that scenario? Because it seems a lot like that's what you're saying."

If that "seems" a lot like what I am saying, then you would be well-advised to make a plausible case why it "seems" that way.

Go ahead, start talking. The microphone is on.


I already did. You said that outlawing marital rape does not bode well for the future of marriage as an institution because it leaves men with no recourse if their wives decide not to ever have sex with them.

And I asked a question, implied by your statement that outlawing marital rape is a bad idea: Are you saying that marital rape is an acceptable response to a woman denying her husband sex?

And you didn't answer.

And here we are.

9:46 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@LC:

"You said that outlawing marital rape does not bode well for the future of marriage as an institution because it leaves men with no recourse if their wives decide not to ever have sex with them."

Note the list of "options", the second and third of which might be considered in the light of recourse.

"I asked a question, implied by your statement that outlawing marital rape is a bad idea. . ."

Rather say, it was prompted by the imputed "statement" - which does not actually occur.

"Are you saying that marital rape is an acceptable response to a woman denying her husband sex?"

I do not, in point of fact, say that.

However, the desirability of marital rape laws, and the morality of marital rape per se, are separate questions.

I am aware of course that marital rape laws serve to empower women. What I fail to understand is how forced celibacy in marriage would have the effect - in pragmatic, real world terms - of strengthening marriage as an institution.

And the brooding spectre of false accusation, naturally enough, ratchets up the ante - possibly even (in the event) adding "injury to insult".

2:26 AM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

You're just mincing words now. Fine, I can play like that.

"You said that outlawing marital rape does not bode well for the future of marriage as an institution because it leaves men with no recourse if their wives decide not to ever have sex with them."

Note the list of "options", the second and third of which might be considered in the light of recourse.

No desirable recourse, then, under your way of seeing this issue, because none of them "bodes well for the future of marriage as an institution."

"I asked a question, implied by your statement that outlawing marital rape is a bad idea. . ."

Rather say, it was prompted by the imputed "statement" - which does not actually occur.

I must've fundamentally misunderstood your entire post, then. Are you implying, despite all evidence to the contrary in your post, that outlawing marital rape is a good idea, because it does not bode well for the future of marriage as an institution?

No, I don't think so. I think you are implying that outlawing marital rape, since it does not bode well for the future of marriage as an institution, is a badidea.

Hence...

"Are you saying that marital rape is an acceptable response to a woman denying her husband sex?"

I do not, in point of fact, say that.

Supply "imply" for "say," then. Can you answer that one?

However, the desirability of marital rape laws, and the morality of marital rape per se, are separate questions.

I completely fail to see any meaningful distinction. That's like saying that the desirability of laws against premeditated murder is debatable, even though we can all agree that premeditated murder is morally heinous. If it's bad, if it's damaging, if it's harmful, if it's morally reprehensible, it deserves to be an outlawed behavior.

Or is marital rape somehow a special case?

I am aware of course that marital rape laws serve to empower women. What I fail to understand is how forced celibacy in marriage would have the effect - in pragmatic, real world terms - of strengthening marriage as an institution.

What I fail to understand is why "strengthening marriage as an institution" is so important to you that you would be willing to make a man forcing his wife to have sex into a legally acceptable situation in order to do it.

Perhaps you can explain why you see a man's right to force his wife into sex as so important to the future of marriage as an institution, because I don't see the importance of sex as an unabated "right."

I see the desirability of sex within marriage, but codifying into law (by taking away the laws that currently exist to make it illegal) a man's "right" to sex -- to the point of rape -- within marriage seems barbaric and unnecessarily restrictive of human rights to me.

Let me sum it up this way:

If marriage needs legally-sanctioned rape in order to be strengthened, maybe marriage deserves to be weakened.

Of course, that's a conditional statement, because I'm not the one who sees rape as somehow central to the strength of marriage as an institution. I don't think marriage is weakened by marital rape laws. The only thing weakened by marital rape laws is the idea that men own their wives sexually. And why you would even imply that you want that idea to continue to exist is beyond me.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Kim said...

Women do NOT have a right to withhold sex from their husbands. The sexual joining of a man and a woman is part and parcel of marriage. Withholding of sex completely undermines the institution of marriage which is supposed to be a joining, both literally and figuratively. Speaking as someone who's been married for 15 years, marriage is NOT the end of sex, or at least it's not supposed to be. Sure, in today's clime where people are selfish and only concerned with "getting theirs", sexual intimacy within a marriage suffers greatly. For those of us who didn't buy into the concept that marriage is about power struggle and manipulation, sex is alive and well, flourishing for that matter. That's what happens when sex occurs without pretense or manipulation and takes place between two people who honor, respect and love one another. Unfortunately, that's a rare occurance in today's world. Today most women do use sex as a tool, an ends to a means...which is not only wrong, but also extremely destructive to their marriage.

10:33 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@literarycritic

I have an aversion to ballooning fiskeries. I like to extract the essential meat of the matter and roll it into a manageable pill. Accordingly. . . .

The verb "to imply" occurs several times in your remarks. Rather say, not that I implied X, but that you imputed that I implied X.

Ergo I did not, in point of fact, imply X.

Anyway: death to the idea of conjugal rights! Fine: we can learn to live with that, and with the consistencies flowing from that. Certainly, celibate marriage should be an option for those who wish it. However, for those who got 'bait-and-switched' into it the case would be different, and for those people some recourse is desireable.

Given that rape would not be such a recourse, that leaves extramarital satisfaction or divorce as alternatives that might (variable with the nature of the case) be pursued.
The idea of monetary compensation from the withholding partner (which Davout mentioned) is another possibility, but for simplicity's sake I will omit it from the present discussion.

Divorce, in some cases, would be the best choice. But in cases where this seems ruled out, extramarital satisfaction would be the way to go - I'm trying hard but I can't think of any other.

Whether marriage as an institution ought to be strengthened or undermined, is a very interesting question, and I am sure the world contains a variety of opinions upon that point. But whichever way it rolls, it would be needful to tack with the wind as the consistencies might require.

Somewhat tangential, but still of the first importance, is the question of false accusation. Laws against marital rape draw this element into the picture as a possibility that must be given due weight. A plausible argument AGAINST anti-marital rape laws could be made upon this point alone were one inclined to do so. But rather than to repeal the laws, an alternative solution might be found on the criminal justice end simply by upholding the "clear and convincing" standard of evidence in court proceedings, and by reading Hale's warning to the jury.

10:47 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Kim: Your contribution upon the question in point is illuminating, and I thank you. :)

10:50 PM  
Blogger literarycritic said...

"The sexual joining of a man and a woman is part and parcel of marriage. Withholding of sex completely undermines the institution of marriage which is supposed to be a joining, both literally and figuratively. Speaking as someone who's been married for 15 years, marriage is NOT the end of sex, or at least it's not supposed to be. Sure, in today's clime where people are selfish and only concerned with "getting theirs", sexual intimacy within a marriage suffers greatly. For those of us who didn't buy into the concept that marriage is about power struggle and manipulation, sex is alive and well, flourishing for that matter. That's what happens when sex occurs without pretense or manipulation and takes place between two people who honor, respect and love one another. Unfortunately, that's a rare occurance in today's world."

I agree totally with this part of your post, Kim. I personally think it's awful that, in today's world, people are entering into marriage without any intention of fulfilling the social/contractual obligations of that pact. Problem is, I just don't see forced sex as any kind of solution to that problem. Especially not a legal right to forced sex.

I mean, morally and abstractly, no, partners in a marriage shouldn't ever withhold sex from one another. Practically speaking, does this happen? Unfortunately, yes. What's the solution? Well, that's complicated. A lot of people who get married nowadays shouldn't be getting married to begin with, but I'm not going to propose taking that right away from them. By the same token, a lot of people who withhold sex from one another within marriage shouldn't be doing so, but I'm sure not going to take that right away from them. I'm not in their marriage, I don't get that say, and if a man rapes his wife or a woman rapes her husband, I'm not going to say that shouldn't be legally prosecutable. I think it should be.

I thought fidelbogen and I differed on that point, but after his last post, I think I may have jumped the gun on this one. So be it, but I still contend that regardless of its moral disgustingness, withholding sex should not result in rape, and such a rape should be punished just as it would be if it were to occur in any other situation. And I don't think marital rape laws -- i.e., the legally-protected ability to withhold sex within marriage -- actually undermines marriage as an institution. If anything, I think it's the people who are choosing to withhold sex within marriage who are undermining marriage as an institution, but their choice to do so should still be respected in a court of law, even if it's bad for society.

11:27 PM  
Blogger Davout said...

kim,

Where can I find women like you?
;-)

7:59 AM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

Kim,

Your husband is still interested in you sexually, and you in him, good for you both. The drugs were meant to keep you together long enough to get children to adulthood, or at least to self-sufficiency. There really aren't many women like you, most would really rather not bother. Married women call sex their "second job".

Laws regarding marital rape would merely provide another means for a woman to steal everything a man has. There is no right to sex in marriage.

That said, many two-income couples hire someone to take care of the kids (day care), hire someone to clean the family home (maid service), and hire someone to cook for them (take out dinners). The children are already being taught at school. Mom and dad are both consumed by their "careers" and are seldom home, and when they are they are on the phone with work. Home has become little more than a warehouse.

Since we hire other people to do all the things that marriage used to entail (raising kids, meals, domestic chores, etc) why not simply hire someone for the last marital duty, sex?

6:06 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Can we accept, then, that many things in this world are double-edged instruments that cut both ways?

Oh, that the world were simple! Perhaps, in the Child's Big Golden Book of Life. . .?

7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well as far as I am concerned If marital
slavery in the form of alimony and child support is OK.
Them marital rape in the form of
conjugal rights is OK. If a man
is not entitled to milk the cow
then a man should not be obligated
to feed the cow. What so Insane about that?
If a man in foolish enough to get married he is assentually sighning a contract that gives him no entitlements and endless obligations.
A society that foces such a contract on a man is what is trully insane.

9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think - previous poster said whole essence in one single sentence:
"If a man
is not entitled to milk the cow
then a man should not be obligated
to feed the cow."... That is it...
Of cause - rape have to be prohibited... But as well - woman have to be prohibited from violating main condition of marriage agreement - "marriage duty" (simply saing - sex) while continuing to use all advantages of marriage... Solution have to be simple and just - as it was for thousands of yeares - wife, denying sex from husband - have to be (by force of law) thrown from home with no right to claim money , children , house and so on... But - of cause - not raped

4:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPOUSAL RAPE LUNACY

What spousal rape, as a concept, does is to void the marital contract in favor of the female. The wife gets paid for her sexual services without having to perform them. The argument that a wife should not have to put out if she doesn’t feel like it is similar to a husband having a legal right to commit adultery if he does not feel like remaining faithful. The husband gives up the right to sex with other women when he gets married; the wife gives up the right to refuse sex when she gets married. That is the quid pro quo and it is binding on both parties.

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Literary Critic is incurably stupid. Kim is right. A wife has no right to refuse sex from her husband because that is what she contracted to provide when she got married. As Judge Matthew Hale very cogently put it: "A wife consented to sex upon marriage and she cannot retract that consent after the fact (or words to that effect)." The issue, in essence, is: "Why pay for it if you don't get it?" (The milk the cow analogy. Directly on point and well stated.) Why should the wife be paid for sexual services that are merely optional rather than mandatory?

9:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home